ID-11 or Microphen

[hoffy]

OK, my first bottle of developer is just about done. While I have been learning processing of B&W film, I have been using LC29 on Hp5+. Results have been OK, but I want something finer grained.

I have been looking at Ilfords powder developers as a cost effective way of achieving this.

Considering that ID-11 and Microphen cost the same to produce the same amount of stock solution, is there any reason to choose ID-11 over microphen? Is there any disadvantages of processing at the lower dilutions (to get more bang for the $)?

I know, I should probably just stop talking and choose one, but I would like some opinions before I do.

Cheers

 

[Anscojohn]

ID-11 (D76) is the accepted standard against which all developers are compared. My suggestion would be to use a jug of it before deciding on whether to use Microphen. My two cents.

 

[Ian Grant]

Having used both extensively I'd suggest ID-11 unless you're doing a lot of push processing, it gives better tonality and finer grain.

Ian

 

[MartinP]

Also consider what speed you will be shooting your film at and have a look at all the data available on the Ilford website. In general, you can't go wrong with either product.

A litre kit for either is only a few Euros (I hope it doesn't triple going over the equator), then you can decide which you prefer, for whatever it is you do. Hint . . . a 5-litre kit only costs 2 1/2 times the price of a one litre box ;o)

 

[Andrew Horodysky]

For general use, my vote, too, goes to ID-11 (comparable to D-76). You really can't go wrong with it; good tonality and fine grain. Microphen, when you're pushing. If Kodak products are readily available in Adelaide, try XTOL, as well.

 

[steven_e007]

Consider Perceptol, too, if you are after finer grain.

I like the suggestion of the others to use ID-11 - the bog standard benchmark developer. Always a good idea to have some ID-11 negs in your collection to compare against, I think - but then try perceptol to see the improvement in grain.

The developers do behave quite differently at different dilutions. You get less of the fine grain solvent effect at 1 + 3 than stock, so grain isn't quite so fine, but the developers are softer and give better sharpness and acutance. I've been using perceptol 1 + 3 for a couple of weeks which is really nice

 

[PhotoJim]

Remember that developers that give finer grain tend to give lower sharpness. If the image is sharp, the grain is sharp. The two go together.

Microphen will give you higher sharpness and larger grain than ID-11 will. Perceptol will give you less.

Using these developers undiluted will give you less grain and sharpness, too.

 

[hoffy]

OK, thanks for the replies all. Exactly the info that I am after. I think I will go for the ID-11 first.

Cheers

 

[hoffy]

OK, I have my ID-11 ready to go. I will mix it up tomorrow night via the instructions.

To stop another new thread from me, I do have a quick question in relation to fixer. I was gifted from another member here (thanks Ninette, I cannot remember your online name!) an unopened 4 litre container of Ilford Rapid Fixer. I was having a look at it last night and noticed that there is a layer of sediment in the bottom of the container. If the gear clears film OK (when diluted), should I be OK to use it? Or should I leave it?

Cheers

 

[Ian Grant]

If it clears film -yes

Ian

 

[hoffy]

Cheers! At least I have plenty of fixer now (but I will use up my piddly little 1 litre bottle first)!

 

[Martin Reed]

Consider Perceptol, too, if you are after finer grain.

If you can afford to lose a bit of speed, Perceptol not only delivers very fine grain, but outstanding sharpness. I originally thought sharpness would suffer to gain the finer grain, but after looking at big magnifications, not so. Achieved by working at an activity bordering on 'stalling' altogether.

 

[pentaxuser]

If you can afford to lose a bit of speed, Perceptol not only delivers very fine grain, but outstanding sharpness. I originally thought sharpness would suffer to gain the finer grain, but after looking at big magnifications, not so. Achieved by working at an activity bordering on 'stalling' altogether.

Martin I am a big fan of Perceptol myself. Can you expand on an activity bordering on "stalling" I assume this is partly dilution plus a form of semi-stand but these are assumptions which might be wrong. Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Martin Reed]

Kodak Microdol X is reckoned to be similar in action, a basic developer, main ingredients only metol and sodium sulphite, which is buffered it to a lower pH, possibly with sodium bisulphite. So it's almost at the point where it's barely operating at all, which reduces grain clumping, helped by the silver solvency of the sulphite. The downside is the speed penalty. There's probably lots of archive stuff on this site about it.

 

[Ian Grant]

You've missed out the salt Martin, both Microdol-X and Perceptol also contain Sodium Chloride. D23 was the Metol/Sulphite developer, D-25 was the same but with a small amount of Sodium Metabisulphite.

The MSDS for Microdol-X also shoes Boric acid (Boric Oxide) & Sodium Metabisulphite.

Ian

 

[Martin Reed]

Quite right, any idea how the sodium chloride operates here? At any rate, they seem to be rather neglected developers, BUT when Perceptol was becoming unavailable 4.5 years ago, as the Ilford crisis happened, was there not panic buying! There are a lot of closet Perceptol users out there.

A footnote, the lab here, Downtown Darkroom, ran a dip and dunk b&w processing line here from 1987 to about 2000 when the amount of film coming through dropped to a point where it was uneconomic to continue. ID11 was run for a while but was a bit over-fierce in the well agitated dip & dunk situation, and the best result was with Perceptol, which worked beautifully, delivering full speed and great quality. Then Ilford dropped the 10 litre size, so that was the end of that. But it's a developer well worth considering even in the 1 litre packing, the potential speed loss puts so many people off from having a look at it.

 

[Chazzy]

Does the speed of Perceptol/Microdol-X improve with increased dilution?

 

[Ian Grant]

The Sodium chloride acts as a restrainer/silver solvent and helps to give much finer grain, back in the 60's Ilford published a Technical sheet P10 which looked at all types Fine grain developers and suggested adding Ammonium Chloride to ID-11 to give an Extra Fine Grain developer, this was around the time Perceptol replaced ID-48.

Ammonium Chloride is still used in a few commercial developers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHEET P10

FINE GRAIN DEVELOPMENT

The graininess of images obtained with conventional developers, i.e. Metol- or Phenidone-hydroquinone carbonate developers, is sufficiently fine for contact prints and moderate enlargements, but when very big enlargements are made from small negatives graininess becomes increasingly apparent.
Special developers have been formulated to produce images of reduced graininess. Many of these developers restrict grain size by dissolving some of the silver forming the image. Since this causes a reduction in density a longer exposure is needed to achieve a satisfactory density for printing. This loss of speed is characteristic of most fine grain developers but one developer which is exceptional in achieving a high speed/grain ratio, (i.e. it combines high speed with fine grain), is Ilford Microphen Fine Grain Developer. A speed increase of at least 50 per cent is possible with most materials and it has the advantages common to Phenidone based developers in that it has a long working life and it is unlikely to cause staining on fingers or clothes.
Most other fine grain developers may be described in one of four categories as follows:
Metol- or Phenidone-hydroquinone borax developers, para-phenylene diamine developers, developers containing silver halide solvents, physical developers ,
Metol- or Phenidone-hydroquinone borax developers
These are characterised by low alkalinity and a high concentration of sodium sulphite. Ilford ID-11 and ID-68 are of this type and are based on Metol and Phenidone respectively.

The formula of ID-11 is:
Metol 2 g.
Sodium sulphite, anhyd. 100g.
Hydroquinone 5 g.
Borax 2 g.
Water to make 1,000 cc.

The formula of ID-68 is:
Sodium sulphite, anhyd. 85 g.
Hydroquinone 5 g.
Borax 7 g.
Boric acid 2 g.
Potassium bromide 1 g.
Phenidone 0.13 g.
Water to make . 1,000 cc.

These formulae are for working strength solutions which are used without further dilution. .
One advantage of this type of formula is that no increase in exposure is necessary; another is that development times are not inconveniently long. The scope of such developers is not limited to small negatives, they are equally suitable as general negative developers.

Para-phenylene diamine developers
Developers in this group contain para-phenylene diamine and sodium sulphite with varying concentrations of glycin. They produce brownish images which show a very considerable reduction in grain compared with conventional developers but they require an increase in exposure of from 11/4 to 4 times, according to the type of developer and negative material. This loss of film speed may limit their usefulness. The developers in this group which achieve the greatest reduction in grain size are those which require the greatest increase in exposure.
The maximum contrast obtainable with these developers is rather low and development times tend to be long. They also have the disadvantage that they are toxic and stain fingers and equipment.

Developers containing silver halide solvents
Certain fine grain formulae contain silver halide solvents such as hypo and thiocyanate. These depend for their action on the fact that some of the silver dissolved during development is redeposited in a very fine form to reinforce the final image. Ilford ID-48 Developer is of this class. Such developers give considerable reduction in grain size but require 50 to 100 per cent extra exposure. Both Ilford ID-l1 and ID-2 developers may be simply modified to work in this way.

ID-11 Add ammonium chloride to ID-11 in the proportion of 20 g. per 500 cc working solution. Camera exposures should be increased by about 50 per cent and the development times are double those specified for ID-11.

ID-2 To ID-2 diluted 1 + 2 add ammonium chloride in the proportion of 5 g. per 500 cc. developer.
Physical developers

These developers contain silver in solution and the developed image consists of very finely divided silver deposited by the action of the developer on the latent image instead of being derived from the silver halides in the emulsion. They give extremely fine grained images which are to some extent independent of the nature of the negative emulsion used. Such developers have, however, found only limited application. Their activity and the fog level they produce fluctuates greatly according to the concentrations of the constituent chemicals, consequently great care is needed in making up the formulae. A high standard of cleanliness is required to avoid contamination of the developer and regular checks on activity are necessary.

Ilford, Phenidone and Microphen are trade marks
ILFORD LIMITED.
ILFORD . ESSEX
TIS/P1O-5/B65 . Printed in England

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would be worth experimenting with adding Sodium or Ammonium Chloride, I suspect Ammonium Chloride is better in ID-11 and Sodium Chloride in D23 (close to Microdol-X & Perceptol)

Ian

 

[pentaxuser]

the best result was with Perceptol, which worked beautifully, delivering full speed and great quality. the potential speed loss puts so many people off from having a look at it.

Martin I am trying to reconcile these two sentences. It seems that dip and dunk agitation can deliver full speed with Perceptol and yet most films with Perceptol are only listed with dev times that cover less than box speed and you have mentioned the drawback of loss of speed of which HP5+ is one example - apparently.

Yet there are films and I think Fuji Neopan 400 is an example where box speed and Perceptol "work" as evidenced from Ilford dev times.

So can more vigorous agitation with normal tanks for 35mm or 120 roll film always achieve full box speed?. If so what would be the required agitation or is it simply that some films will deliver box speed with Perceptol and others will not, no matter what agitation is used?

Extra fine grain, sharpness and full box speed is a circle worth squaring if at all possible even if it means long dev times.

pentaxuser

 

[steven_e007]

Does the speed of Perceptol/Microdol-X improve with increased dilution?

My personal experience is that you lose about 1 stop of speed but get very fine grain with perceptol used as stock.

Diluted the developer loses some of it's ultra fine grain characteristics, I suppose because the silver solvent effect of the sulphite is reduced, but the loss of film speed is less noticeable.

At 1+3 it is still very fine grain but is more of a soft working high(ish) acutance type developer, film speed is not much slower than ID-11.

Zone system workers might still notice a small speed loss, I've heard 1/3rd stop mentioned for 1+3, but I am getting some nice negatives using the box speed for HP5+ and FP4+. At the moment I am enjoying trying out several old 120 folders. Any subtle loss of film speed is disguised by the cranky old shutters and my guestimated "sunny 16" exposure techniques!

PS. I've only ever used it with Pan F, FP4+, HP5+

 

[M-88]

I'm too scared to open a new topic after what happened last time, so I'll bring back the dead thread instead

But let's change the conditions a little. I have never developed anything on my own so I have no experience whatsoever. Microphen and ID-11 are the only available options in my country so I have to choose from them. Which one is more forgiving? I think most of you will say ID-11, but still it's good to double-check. So thanks in advance.

 

[Ian Grant]

ID-11 is the better choice.

Ian

 

[M-88]

ID-11 is the better choice.

Ian

Thank you. I can develop Delta 3200 / Tmax P3200 with adequate quality if I follow the instructions, right?

 

[BradS]

Thank you. I can develop Delta 3200 / Tmax P3200 with adequate quality if I follow the instructions, right?

Depends upon what you mean by "adequate quality". Those are both excellent, special purpose emulsions, both capable of producing beautiful results in ID-11 / D-76 but neither is in any way ever going to be consistent with "fine grain".

 

[M-88]

Depends upon what you mean by "adequate quality". Those are both excellent, special purpose emulsions, both capable of producing beautiful results in ID-11 / D-76 but neither is in any way ever going to be consistent with "fine grain".

I should have elaborated, sorry. Here's the whole thing:

I want to try out P3200, or Delta 3200, whichever I get for cheaper. Autumn is coming, days will be short and it would be nice to give it a try. But infortunately labs here don't do push/pull processing. So if I brin EI3200 films they won't develop them as if they are rated 3200, but instead they will give me underdeveloped films, which I don't want. So I thought I'd do it myself.

Of course I have a few rolls of regular BW film Kentmere 100, which I will sacrifice for testing purposes and to learn how to develop so I won't rush in with Delta or Tmz.